MARCH 15, 2017 SPECIAL BOARD MEETING  

At the February 22, 2017 Board of Trustees Meeting Agenda Item #10, Trustees were asked to approve RESOLUTION NO. 1617-56, Ratification of Agreement to Purchase the Esencia School Site and Delegation to Accept the Deed.

In advance of the meeting the Public expressed concerns over missing material terms; such as the price of the land CUSD was to purchase. Staff pulled the item from the Consent Calendar and agreed to hear the item in a Special Board Meeting on March 15, 2017.

CUSD Staff is asking Trustees to ratify a resolution to purchase the Esencia K-8 School site (vacant land - with NO ENTITLEMENTS) for $33.86 million ($2.4 million per acre) when ALL documentation presented to the Public prior to the resolution stated that the cost of the land would be $21 million ($1.5 million per acre).

The following Resolution is the subject of the March 15, 2017 Special Board meeting.

March 15, 2017 Board Meeting Agenda Item #1 RESOLUTION NO. 1617-56, Ratification of Agreement to Purchase the Esencia School Site and Delegation to Accept the Deed. http://capousd-ca.schoolloop.com/file/1218998819331/1455438848279/7649589225424779927.pdf

 

PUBLIC ARGUMENT AGAINST THE APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1617-56

The proposed scope and cost of the land for Escencia was always projected to be $21 million for 14 acres - $1.5 million per acre.

Agenda Item #10 RESOLUTION to approve the purchase was presented to Trustees and the Public without a Price.

Members of the Public Requested that the Agenda Item be amended to reflect the purchase price of the land.

The Item was amended by Staff to reflect a Purchase price of $33.86 million - $2.42 million per acre

Members of the public requested that Staff make Public the three appraisals that would provide answers as to how the price went from $21 million to $33.86 million

The Staff refused to provide the appraisals, and has not made the appraisal available to the Public to date. Members of the Public have obtained a copy of the appraisal; and have studied the appraisal, and have found the following:

  • There is only one Appraisal of this land. 
  • The appraisal was requested by CUSD, and was completed on October 10, 2016. 
  • Staff received the Appraisal October 24, 2016.
  • Staff did not share the Appraisal with Trustees upon receipt. Instead Staff waited until February 10, 2017 in preparation for the February 22, 2017 board meeting.
  • Staff did not provide Trustees with an opportunity to review the proposal prior to this Board Meeting. Had staff shared the Appraisal with Trustees in a timely manner, Trustees would have had the opportunity to seek a secondary appraisal correcting material defects within the October 2016 Appraisal.  

The Appraisal with PUBLIC comments can be found at this link: http://disclosurecusd.blogspot.com/2017/02/appraisal.html

The Appraisal was based on "highest and best use” - the Appraiser valued this vacant lot (with NO ENTITLEMENTS) as if it had 100 dwelling units on it.

The empty lot contains no entitlements, and in fact the Ranch maintained the right to build these 100 homes in other parcels in RMV. 

on page 27 of the Appraisal it shows that the valuation is based on 6 sales. 4 of the sales closed in 2015 and showed valuations closer to the $21 million dollar figure. 2 Sales closer to the $34 million dollar figure were pending or future sales. 

The Agreement for Purchase and Sale and Escrow PA2 School Site was executed by Clark Hampton on January 19, 2017 and was done so WITHOUT BOARD APPROVAL and WITH THE INTENT TO DECEIVE THE PUBLIC; AND TRUSTEES, WHO WERE ELECTED TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF TAXPAYERS IN ALL MATTERS BEFORE THE BOARD.

The Attorney for CUSD signed his name with an X and a scribble which is not identifiable.

 

The People feel that this Agreement was entered into with the intent to defraud the public, and a complaint has been filed with the District Attorney.

Kristen Vital and Clark Hampton are listed as the Agency Negotiators for this purchase. 

Neither Clark Hampton nor Kristen Vital are licensed real-estate brokers, and are not qualified to negotiate this deal.

Attorney Stan Barankiewicz works for the law firm Orbach, Huff, Suarez and Henderson who are also handling the Conflict of Interest case against Trustee Hatton-Hodson.

The Attorney Fees paid to this firm were increased from $100,000 to $300,000 at the February 22, 2017 BOT Meeting.

 CUSD's March 15, 2017 PRESENTATION: 

 

THE PUBLIC'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION IN OPPOSITION

The November 6, 2013 Resolution referred to in the Agenda Item can be found at the following link on Page 1 of the Agenda: http://capousd.ca.schoolloop.com/file/1229223560406/1218998864154/3709927292726737311.pdf

The 2013 Environmental Impact Report presented to the Board on January 28, 2013 stated that the estimated cost of the land was $21 million dollars - $1.5 million dollars per acre. http://capousd.ca.schoolloop.com/file/1229223560406/1218998864154/4378738717313669779.pdf

The 2013 Agreement was based on the following:

Source: http://capousd.ca.schoolloop.com/file/1229223560406/1218998864154/3709927292726737311.pdf pages 58 - 65

On February 24 2016, CUSD presented the following Negative Declaration Esencia K-8 School to the Board http://capousd.ca.schoolloop.com/file/1218998819331/1455438848279/2139397955426328885.pdf

The original agreement was for 19 Acres of land 4 joint use (15 school acres). The Negative Declaration states that their should be 20 acres of land 4 joint use (16 school acres).

The February 22, 2017 Board Resolution is stating that CUSD is purchasing 14 acres of land - 4 joint use which would be a total of 18 acres of land?

 

The Appraisal was completed in October 2016, was shown to the Ranch. District Staff did not share the Appraisal with Trustees until February 2017 in preparation for the February 22, 2017 Board meeting. Staff should have shared the Appraisal with Trustees in October, 2017 so that Trustees would have had the option of seeking a second appraisal that would correct certain defects. 

The Agreement (at 77 page document) was executed on January 19, 2017

On page 4 of 77:

The School Facilities funding agreement between CUSD and RMV was approved by the Board on November 6, 2013 Resolution No 1314-25 on page 1 http://capousd.ca.schoolloop.com/file/1229223560406/1218998864154/3709927292726737311.pdf

SECTION 8.3 states:

 

 

 

 

 

The 2013 EIR approved Entitlements for 14,000 Dwelling Units (up to 6,000 age qualifying units and 8,000 non-age qualifying units) + (60 acres of Affordable Dwelling Units) + 5,000,000 square feet of non- residential, commercial use.

The 14,000 is a cap, but the mix of age qualifying units and and non-age qualifying units could be altered.

The Affordable Dwelling units are in additional to the 14,000 maximum. 

The Agreement acknowledges that CUSD may have insufficient funding to build Esencia and that OTHER Local Revenue Sources may be necessary.

Per dwelling unit School fees to be paid to CUSD from the Ranch to mitigate the effect of the PA1 and PA2 on CUSD.

There is a very complicated True-up payment based on middle school students that are above the Esencia 1,200 student capacity + Available K-5 PERMANENT capacity then PA1 and PA2 "PROPERTY OWNERS:

When a Project Application Notice is filed a 90 day approval period in which the Applicant may protest the fees begins. If it cannot be waived it commences on the date of this agreement. 

The Reservation of a High School Site.

CUSD promises not to:

a) levy any new fee, tax, assessment, charge against PA1 and PA2. 

This is not applicable to:

(i) possible future District-Wide parcel taxes for operating costs or technology improvements.

(ii) any existing authorized general obligation bonds 

(iii) any existing authorized general obligation bonds of SFID

(iv) any SFID consisting only of PA1 and PA2.

CUSD jumped through all kinds of hoops to exclude the Ranch from Measure M? It looks like they could have included Esencia and Sendero in a bond?

b) require the dedication of land fees as a condition to the approval of dwelling units. 

*Note: under "Local Control" the County is saying that they have no control over the permits. CUSD controls the speed of building based on the capacity of seats by the paperwork it submits to the County allowing permits to be issued.

c) CUSD agrees not to deny permits based on inadequate school facilities or to seek other forms of mitigation.

d) these provisions do not apply to planning Areas 3, 4, 5 and 8 relating to grades K-12.

*Note: High School is excluded?

Paragraph 3.8 The Superintendent was given complete autonomy to issue Certificates of Compliance without going back to the Board.